Pau 1

Jennie Pau

Zack De Piero

Writing 2

16 March 2015

Which Article Works Better in This Situation?

There are couple of ways to inform a person or an audience about a scientific discovery

on a particular disease. One can write an academic scholarly journal or write an article for a

mainstream media site. By doing this, writers can use the functions of a particular type of writing

to provide information that readers need to know. Although a reader can gather information from

these articles, one must work better than the other. In this case, there are two articles that men-

tion hope in finding a cure for sickle cell disease— one academic scholarly article, “A century af-

ter discovery of sickle cell disease: keeping hope alive!” written by Dipika Mohanty, and a non-

academic, featured news article, “Sickle cell disease once meant a short and painful life, but now

there’s growing hope” written by Laura Hambleton that is posted on the mainstream media site,

“The Washington Post”. The two authors presents information and evidence for possible cures of

sickle cell disease but does it in a different way from each other. In terms of choosing which arti-

cle conveys the main message better to a larger, casual audience, Hambleton, the author of the

non-academic article, does a better job in attracting the audience’s interest with the contents un-

der the headings, and spreading awareness, a sense of hope, and positive results, which readers

would like to hear.

The non-academic article has an interesting headline that appeases the curiosity of read-

ers, which keeps the reader to continue to read the rest of the article. First, Hambleton uses a

Pau 2

headline to catch the readers’ attention when they look through the news site. Karen Rosenberg,

the author of “Strategies for Readings Scholarly Sources”, advises readers to “pay attention to the

title because it can convey a lot of information that can help them figure out how to read the rest

of the article more efficiently.” (Rosenberg 215) Just by reading the title or headline, the reader

can predict what the author will talk about. After the prediction, if the heading creates a curiosity

within the reader into wanting to know more about the topic, the reader will continue to read on

to the next subheadings and its contents under it. With the headline “Sickle cell disease once

meant a short and painful life, but now there’s growing hope”(Hambleton), many audience would

be curious to know what the sickle cell disease is. But adding “once meant a short and painful

life” helps the reader understand that it is a painful disease. Mentioning the word “hope” might

suggest that sickle cell disease is an incurable disease and can lead the reader to read more to

find out if there is a cure. With the curiosity of whether there is a cure or not, the reader contin-

ues to read to look for an answer.

After the headline, Hambleton provides more interesting information on the disease that

satisfies the curiosity from the previous heading/subheadings, but also creates another curiosity,

in which the reader will be tempted to read on. Hambleton includes a real-life story where a pair

of twin girls has sickle cell disease. These two girls have been visiting the doctors to receive

check-ups and examinations on the disease. Hambleton mentions that although there are not

many cures for the disease, scientists are still searching for cures and testing them out. David

Nathan, a hematologist, states that “if scientists raise fetal hemoglobin in sickle cell patients, they

can cure the disease.”(Nathan) This statement relieves curious readers that there is a cure but is

not successful yet. Another hematologist, Winfred Wang, gives an even more promising

Pau 3

results where “patients with hydroxyurea had many fewer pain events, swelling of hands and

feet, episodes of acute chest syndrome and hospital stays.” (Wang) These information satisfies

some of the readers’ curiosities by letting them know some of the possible cures for the disease.

As readers want to know more about other possible cures, they will continue to read on. After

reading the next few subheadings, readers can get a sense of what the contents of the subhead-

ings will be about and can look for information to answer their curiosities. Bringing back what

Rosenberg mentions readers should do, Rosenberg advices readers to read the subheadings to see

and think what the contents under it will be about. Just by reading the next few subheadings such

as gene therapy, bone marrow treatments, and anti-inflammatory drugs, the reader will know that

the author is gathering up a few more possible cures and treatments for the disease. Therapy,

treatments, and drugs are words that suggest that these can cure or treat sickle cell patients tem-

porary. Hambleton’s article gets readers interested and hooked on to read more.

On the other hand, the academic scholarly article written by Mohanty is about having

hope on the disease and what kind of statistics there are, but does not provide possible cures sci-

entists already found that readers would want to know. Both articles attract readers’ attention and

makes them curious about what the disease is and what kinds of cure there are. The topic for

both articles is to know what hope there is for the sickle cell disease. Mohanty does a poor job at

spreading the fact that there is a cure for the disease. Her article only provides facts and statistics

to get the interests of scientists and to gather more scientists to research about sickle cells. For

example, Mohanty wrote, “Again, to advise governments about the health burden that will be

posed by the SCD in the future it is vital that better health, economic data are collected” and “So,

it is a call to all the hematologists to join hands to raise these data.”(794). This suggests that

Pau 4

hematologists or scientists should focus and research on sickle cell disease to collect more data.

Mohanty fails to mention what casual readers really want to know: possible cures.

Although both articles are similar to each other, Hambleton’s article has a better purpose

than Mohanty’s article. The purpose in Hambleton’s article is to inform a larger group of audi-

ence, who have zero or few knowledge about sickle cell disease. By doing so, Hambleton uses a

famous news article site that many people read from to outreach to a larger group of audience.

Losh and Alexander, the authors of the comic, “Understanding Rhetoric,” states that “each writ-

ing situation has its own demands, its own expectations, and its own sense of how writing is to

be presented.” (Losh and Alexander 9) Since Hambleton uses a mainstream article site to target a

larger group of audience, she uses simple words so that anyone can read it and understand. She

wants to spread awareness of sickle cell disease. The article contains short, but descriptive infor-

mation and facts and words from doctors and patients on sickle cell disease. The brief informa-

tion quickly grasps the readers’ attention and curiosity without making them feel bored as they

do when reading a long description. Academic articles are usually longer as it contains many in-

formation and goes deep into giving descriptions of the topic. Non-academic articles are shorter

and they get straight to the point. If a reader wants to know more about the topic, there are hyper-

links that a reader can click on. These will lead them to another article—scholar articles or an-

other news article—and readers can read more about it. Even though the whole article contains

brief information, the information is enough to understand what is going on.

On the other hand, Mohanty focuses more on a smaller group by using specific, profes-

sional words, which is not a good choice when the point is to attract the readers’ attention

Pau 5

and interest, and spread awareness of the disease. The article does not attract a larger group of

audience; it uses a specific jargon for the targeted audience who are mainly scientists or hematol-

ogists—people who study bone marrow, blood, and lymphatic systems disorders—or students

writing a paper on sickle cell disease. People who studies sickle cell disease or are scientists can

understand the words mentioned in the article. For example, the article mentions, “The incidence

of βS gene varies from 0 to 40 per cent and the relatively high frequency of β-thalassaemia in the

same population groups often leads to the clinically important condition, sickle haemoglobin β

thalassaemia” (Mohanty 793). Readers who do not study sickle cell disease may wonder and

question what β-thalassaemia or haemoglobin β thalassaemia is. This limits her range of audi-

ence as not many people are scientists. With the unfamiliar words, readers would stop halfway

and move on to do something else.

Hambleton’s article is best for the purpose of the topic— attracting a larger audience to

spread awareness and cures of the sickle cell disease. It is best for those who wants to get straight

to the point, learn brief information on the disease, and learn about the possible cures. For exam-

ple, Hambleton states that “mutated cells do not flow smoothly and can get lodged in veins, caus-

ing excruciating pain, anemia, severe fatigue, respiratory distress and eventually organ failure

and early death” while Mohanty mentions “Priapism and leg ulcers seem very uncommon in In-

dian patients. About 66 per cent had splenomegaly and 10 per cent had gallstones. Jaundice is

not uncommon. About 52 per cent of the patients had hemolytic jaundice. In all these cases Hb F

level was significantly low7.”(794) Mohanty uses scientist’s jargon and not many people will un-

derstand what she is saying there if they do not know what gallstones or hemolytic jaundice.

Hambleton uses simple words that most people can understand. Mohanty, on the other hand,

Pau 6

provides deeper information on the disease than Hambleton. The academic article is a good use

for students who might want to use it to write a paper on the author’s opinion of the disease. Sci-

entists or other researchers might read this article to understand Mohanty’s opinion or learn what

she discovered.

The two authors wrote information about this topic in different ways. Both articles can

work really well in relaying the message or information in certain situations. Mohanty’s article

works best for a group of audience that studies in the field of sickle cell disease, while Hamble-

ton’s article is best for a larger group of audience with no knowledge about the disease. But the

main point and idea of both articles is to spread awareness that there are possible cures and at the

same time, spread hope. Hambleton’s article works best for this main point as she mentions that

there are tests and experiments that are working or are tested. Mohanty only gives statistic on the

disease and spread awareness to gather more scientists to find a cure. Although both authors pro-

vide great amount of information, the effectiveness on how well the article can be used for de-

pends on the main point and how well the authors send that message out to the audience.

Pau 7

Works Cited

Hambleton, Laura. “Sickle Cell Disease Once Meant a Short and Painful Life, But Now There’s

Growing Hope.” The Washington Post. 3 March 2014. Web. 10 February 2015.

Losh, Elizabeth, and Jonathan Alexander. “Understanding Rhetoric: A Graphic Guide to

Writing.” Bedford/St. Martin’s. First Edition. 304p. 15 March 2013. Print. 10 Feb-

ruary 2015.

Mohanty, Dipika. “A Century After Discovery of Sickle Cell Disease: Keeping Hope Alive!”

Indian Journal of Medical Research. Jun 2014, Vol. 139 Issue 6, p793-795. 3p.

10 February 2015.

Rosenberg, Karen. “Reading Games: Strategies for Reading Scholarly Sources.” 2011. Print. 10

February 2015.